Shobhit Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 11398 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shobhit Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 October, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:181083
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5029 of 2024   
 
   Shobhit Verma    
 
  .....Revisionist(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Another    
 
  .....Opposite Party(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Revisionist(s)   
 
:   
 
Mukul Yadav, Rajesh Yadav   
 
  
 
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)   
 
:   
 
Brij Raj Singh, G.A., Rajat Agarwal   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 50
 
   
 
 HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.      

1. Mr. Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, are present.

2. Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no. 2 has already been filed, however, no one is present for opposite party no. 2.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

4. Perused the record.

5. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Amroha in Case No. 237 of 2022, Smt. Shalini Verma v. Shobhit Verma, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Police Station- Said Nagli, District- Amroha.

6. The facts of the case, in brief, are that marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 20.11.2021 according to the Hindu rights and rituals. According to opposite party no. 2, she was physically and mentally tortured on account of demand of dowry and thrown out of her matrimonial home as a result of non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

7. Opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, claiming Rs. 80,000/- monthly maintenance from the revisionist. The case was registered in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Amroha bearing number 237 of 2022. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Amroha, vide impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2024, has allowed the application of opposite party no. 2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month as maintenance to her from the date of the application that is 25.04.2022. Feeling aggrieved, the present criminal revision has been preferred before this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the revisionist argues that opposite party no. 2 did not produce any documentary evidence regarding income of revisionist. The revisionist is working in the office of a property dealer as an employee and is getting salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The opposite party no. 2 is a highly qualified lady and is earning well. She is teaching in a school and is also giving tuition, whereby she is earning Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month. The revisionist is earning much less than the opposite party no. 2 and these facts have not been considered by the Court below, while passing the impugned judgment and order, and, therefore, he has requested for setting aside the impugned judgment and order by allowing the present criminal revision.

9. Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the present criminal revision and has argued that the impugned judgment and order has been passed on the facts available on the file that too in accordance with well settled law, which requires no interference, and, therefore, requests for the dismissal of the present criminal revision.

10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the revisionist was asked regarding qualification of the revisionist, which he was unable to answer. It was also inquired by Court that whether the revisionist is facing criminal prosecution for alleged demand of dowry or not. The learned counsel for the revisionist has fairly conceded that Case Crime No. 202 of 2022 dated 21.03.2022, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is pending against revisionist and his family members.

11. On considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the revisionist and State as well as on perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 01.08.2024, it is an admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist.

12. Learned Trial Court has recorded a finding at page no. 8 of the impugned judgment that it was the revisionist who has thrown out opposite party no. 2 from her matrimonial home and is not giving any expenses for maintenance to opposite party no. 2, whereas she is willing and is ready to reside with the revisionist. Therefore, as far as reasons for opposite party no. 2 living separately is concerned, the learned Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding on this issue and this Court being Revisional Court, cannot reappreciate the evidence and also can not substitute it's own finding, in place of the finding of facts recorded by the Trial Court on this issue in question, unless the finding is completely perverse and is against the facts and law, which is not the case in hand.

13. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that none of the party has placed on record any documentary evidence regarding income of either of the party. Opposite party no. 2 has claimed that the revisionist is not maintaining her. Before the learned Trial Court, revisionist has stated that opposite party no. 2 is a highly qualified lady having degrees in the form of M.A. and B.Ed., and, is, earning on account of teaching and tuition, but no documentary evidence, regarding income of opposite party no. 2, has been placed on record by the revisionist. In this background, whether opposite party no. 2 is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning, are two different requirements. If wife is capable of earning, then mere capability is not sufficient to deny maintenance to her.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801, has observed: "16. An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. Likewise, the financial position of the wife's parents is also immaterial. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the court."

15. Similarly, in Shailja and another v. Khobbanna, (2018), 12 SCC 199, it has been observed: "5. That apart, we find that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that Appellant I was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. Whether Appellant 1 is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements Merely because Appellant 1 is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court."

16. Therefore, the law on this point is very clear that if wife is educated and well qualified to earn an income, this itself is not sufficient to deny maintenance to her.

17. It is not the case of revisionist that opposite party no. 2 is having any specialized technical/medical qualification like B.Tech., M.B.A., M.C.A, M.B.B.S. etc. In present-day scenario, by merely acquiring M.A. and B.Ed., it cannot be presumed that opposite party no. 2 is actually earning some income, unless proved contrary. Although, it has been claimed by the petitioner that his wife is earning Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- per month from teaching in a school as well as by giving tuitions. But, no such record was produced, either before this Revisional Court or Trial Court. Therefore, this plea of husband/petitioner, that the wife is earning Rs. 25,000/-/Rs. 30,000/- per month, is not acceptable. However, the revisionist has admitted in paragraph no. 15 of his reply/objection before Trial Court that he is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month as salary and finding to this effect has also been recorded by learned Trial Court at page no. 9 of the impugned judgment and order. The revisionist has also concealed his own qualifications and he is also facing prosecution in a criminal case regarding demand of dowry. The opposite party no. 2 is also facing criminal prosecution in Case Crime No. No. 201 of 2022, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Moradabad, along with his family members, which was got registered by petitioner. Therefore, in above circumstances, the opposite party no. 2 has every reason to live separately and as per admission of the revisionist, he is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has opined that since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and cannot not avoid his obligation.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (supra) and Kulbhushan Kumar (Dr) v. Raj Kumari, (1970) 3 SCC 129, has observed that the maintenance allowances can be granted up to the extent of 25% of the net income of the husband. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meager that it drives the wife to penury.

20. Thus, this Revisional Court is of the considered opinion that the maintenance allowance, fixed by the Court below, is not as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) as 25 % of Rs. 20,000/- comes out to Rs. 5,000/- per month. As such, Rs. 5,000/-, towards monthly maintenance allowance, in favour of opposite party no. 2, is just, reasonable and realistic. Therefore, the judgment and order dated 01.08.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Amroha in Case No. 237 of 2022, Smt. Shalini Verma v. Shobhit Verma, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is required to be modified accordingly.

21. Consequently, the judgment and order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the the Principal Judge, Family Court, Amroha in Case No. 237 of 2022, Smt. Shalini Verma v. Shobhit Verma, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is modified to the extent that now the revisionist shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2 from the date of application.

22. Taking a humanitarian approach, this Court, also, provides that the arrears of maintenance allowance shall be paid by the revisionist in six monthly equal installments. The first installment shall commence from 1st November, 2025.

23. It is also clarified that the arrears of amount towards maintenance allowance, as awarded by the Court below, shall be calculated on the basis of amount of maintenance allowance as fixed by this Court herein above and after that if it is found that any amount has been paid in excess, the same shall be adjusted from the amount to be paid.

24. The present criminal revision is, accordingly, partly allowed.

25. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)

October 10, 2025

Prashant D.